Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45

Thread: To cut or not to cut?

  1. #1
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,593

    To cut or not to cut?

    That is the question being posed in the Bay Area.

    SF seeking to ban infant circumcision

    Self-described "civil rights advocates" say that a ballot proposition to ban circumcision is on track for gathering signatures, meaning that San Franciscans may vote on the measure this November.
    The proposed law is being spearheaded by local resident Lloyd Schofield, according to the San Francisco Examiner.
    Last edited by Brutus; 02-22-2011 at 07:13 PM.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Tired of talk. Win! Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Commonwealth
    Posts
    8,392

    Re: To cut or not to cut?

    I wish I had something intelligent to add to this conversation, but all I can say is....

    Championships for MY teams in my lifetime:
    Cincinnati Reds - 75, 76, 90
    Chicago Blackhawks - 10, 13
    University of Kentucky - 78, 96, 98, 12
    Cincinnati Bengals - None
    Chicago Bulls - 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98

  4. #3
    Please come again pedro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    portland, oregon
    Posts
    14,753

    Re: To cut or not to cut?

    San Francisco is not seeking to ban circumcision.

    A man in SF is seeking to ban circumcision by getting a initiative on the ballot.

    Big big difference.

    It only takes 7,000 signatures to get something on the ballot in SF. (Statewide ballot initiatives her in oregon require 50,000 signatures.)
    Get your nunchucks and the keys to your dad's car. I know where we can get a gun

  5. #4
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,629

    Re: To cut or not to cut?

    Quote Originally Posted by pedro View Post
    San Francisco is not seeking to ban circumcision.

    A man in SF is seeking to ban circumcision by getting a initiative on the ballot.

    Big big difference.

    It only takes 7,000 signatures to get something on the ballot in SF. (Statewide ballot initiatives her in oregon require 50,000 signatures.)
    True but it is "San Francisco". They've been known to vote nutty things in before. Let's hope they're intelligent enough not to impose their will on this patient/doctor decision. You wonder why anyone would care if this procedure is legal or not? I'd love to expound on how this issue compares to that area's strong opinions on reproductive rights but I fear that'll take this too far into the political realm if it isn't there already.

  6. #5
    Please come again pedro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    portland, oregon
    Posts
    14,753

    Re: To cut or not to cut?

    I love "San Francisco" and I get tired of people from the midwest using it as some sort of pejorative reference point.

    Having grown up in Cincinnati I'm well aware of how negatively such references would be viewed were they turned the other way.

    I'll leave it at that.
    Get your nunchucks and the keys to your dad's car. I know where we can get a gun

  7. #6
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,593

    Re: To cut or not to cut?

    Quote Originally Posted by pedro View Post
    San Francisco is not seeking to ban circumcision.

    A man in SF is seeking to ban circumcision by getting a initiative on the ballot.

    Big big difference.

    It only takes 7,000 signatures to get something on the ballot in SF. (Statewide ballot initiatives her in oregon require 50,000 signatures.)
    Well it's more than one man as he's getting thousands of signatures, but I get your point.

    It was meant more as a general statement that there is a movement in San Francisco to ban it, which is true.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  8. #7
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,281

    Re: To cut or not to cut?

    Meanwhile in Cleveland this law is on the books, Women are forbidden from wearing patent leather shoes, lest men see reflections of their underwear.

    Crazy place Cleveland, those folks are responsible for the future of our children!!

  9. #8
    Maple SERP savafan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    17,584

    Re: To cut or not to cut?

    In the city I grew up in, Piqua, OH, there is a law on the books stating that it is unlawful for a woman to undress in front of a picture of a man that is not her husband.

    It is also illegal to bathe after 8:00 PM
    My dad got to enjoy 3 Reds World Championships by the time he was my age. So far, I've only gotten to enjoy one. Step it up Redlegs!

  10. #9
    Member medford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    2,083

    Re: To cut or not to cut?

    Hey, I'm not going to argue with you if you think Cleveland needs to be erased off the map. I keed, I keed. Sort of

  11. #10
    Member 15fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    5,519

    Re: To cut or not to cut?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Ray View Post
    They've been known to vote nutty things in before.


    I see this issue quickly coming to a head.

    What would be really great is if it makes it on the November ballot as Proposition #4. That way, one of the sides could promote "For Foreskin on #4."

  12. #11
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,593

    Re: To cut or not to cut?

    Quote Originally Posted by 15fan View Post


    I see this issue quickly coming to a head.

    What would be really great is if it makes it on the November ballot as Proposition #4. That way, one of the sides could promote "For Foreskin on #4."
    Vote YES on 4skin!
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  13. #12
    Member klw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    6,603

    Re: To cut or not to cut?

    Why should the measure not be put to a vote? Many locations have outlawed "female genital mutilation" so it is not a stretch that someone will consider circumcision to be a form of male genital mutilation and seek protection for male infants. If someone feels strong enought that they wish to ge it done once they are adults then it can be a rite of passage here as it is in other places in the world.
    Now if only Fort Wayne would listen to the will of their people and put the city govt center to a real vote
    http://www.journalgazette.net/articl...OCAL/302089963
    (Really what other thread could this go in)

  14. #13
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,593

    Re: To cut or not to cut?

    Quote Originally Posted by klw View Post
    Why should the measure not be put to a vote? Many locations have outlawed "female genital mutilation" so it is not a stretch that someone will consider circumcision to be a form of male genital mutilation and seek protection for male infants. If someone feels strong enought that they wish to ge it done once they are adults then it can be a rite of passage here as it is in other places in the world.
    Now if only Fort Wayne would listen to the will of their people and put the city govt center to a real vote
    http://www.journalgazette.net/articl...OCAL/302089963
    (Really what other thread could this go in)
    I think the difference between this and the issue of female genital mutilation is that with a male, it doesn't take away the ability to find intercourse pleasurable or stimulating. This is more a ritualistic issue whereas with females, it's sometimes used as an issue of control over a spouse.

    I guess I see both sides. Personally, though, I see no reason that the government should interfere (though I realize this isn't lawmakers trying to do so right now).
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  15. #14
    We are the angry mob cincyinco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The 303
    Posts
    2,540

    Re: To cut or not to cut?

    Quote Originally Posted by savafan View Post
    In the city I grew up in, Piqua, OH, there is a law on the books stating that it is unlawful for a woman to undress in front of a picture of a man that is not her husband.

    It is also illegal to bathe after 8:00 PM
    Piqua.. Where most of my fathers side of the family is from.. I wonder if he knows of these silly laws
    "I hate to advocate chemicals, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone... But they've always worked for me."

    -Hunter S. Thompson

  16. #15
    Hisssssssss Yachtzee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Land of the Lost
    Posts
    7,267

    Re: To cut or not to cut?

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou View Post
    Meanwhile in Cleveland this law is on the books, Women are forbidden from wearing patent leather shoes, lest men see reflections of their underwear.

    Crazy place Cleveland, those folks are responsible for the future of our children!!
    Somehow, I get the feeling that laws like this are either a dead letter, as they've never been enforced, or were automatically repealed when the cities that enacted them enacted a new charter or extensive government reform bills over the years. I think there's a difference between a hundred year-old law that's been forgotten and a current initiative to put something on the ballot. But I see your point. San Francisco doesn't have a monopoly on people trying to get controversial proposals on the ballot.

    Somehow, I don't see this particular law, even if passed, getting through court challenges. Especially since it would place a restriction on the religious practice of a significant minority of US citizens.
    Burn down the disco. Hang the blessed DJ. Because the music that he constantly plays, it says nothing to me about my life.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25